Which committee or body authorized the November 12, 2025 Epstein file release and what was the vote tally?

1. How the release was authorized: the discharge petition that forced a vote

Reporting across outlets identifies an arcane House tool — a discharge petition — as the mechanism that compelled authorization of a floor vote to force release of Department of Justice materials tied to Jeffrey Epstein; Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie led the effort and secured the 218 signatures needed to trigger action ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Multiple outlets describe the bill as the Epstein Files Transparency Act or similar legislation that would require public release of unclassified DOJ investigative files ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Why Nov. 12 matters: the signature that finished the petition

Local and national press reported that Nov. 12 was the day the last required signature was obtained — Rep. Adelita Grijalva’s swearing‑in added the 218th name — creating the procedural obligation to move the petition to the floor, effectively forcing House leadership to schedule the vote ^{[2] [1]}. News organizations characterized that moment as pivotal because, once frozen at 218, no names can be removed and the petition compels consideration ^[2].

3. Who pushed and who reversed: political dynamics around the vote

President Trump had earlier resisted the release but publicly reversed course and urged House Republicans to back the release after it became clear dozens of GOP members might support the petition; outlets from Reuters to The New York Times and CNN documented the president’s U‑turn and described internal GOP pressure and threats of defections as a key driver ^{[6] [7] [5]}. House Speaker Mike Johnson ultimately said he would bring the measure to the floor after the petition met its threshold ^[2].

4. What the petition would do — and limits on its power

Coverage frames the legislative vehicle as seeking to force the DOJ to make public all unclassified documents connected to the Epstein investigation; analysts note that even if the House passed such a bill, the Senate might not take it up and the president could veto it — meaning a House vote alone does not guarantee complete public disclosure ^{[2] [4]}. ABC News and The Washington Post described the legislation’s scope and the limits of a single‑chamber measure ^{[4] [8]}.

5. Vote tally: what reporting provides — and what it does not

The assembled sources clearly document that the discharge petition reached the required 218 signatures on Nov. 12 and that the House scheduled a floor vote ^{[2] [1] [3]}. However, none of the provided items in the search results supply the final floor vote tally or the precise outcome of the Nov. 18/Week‑of‑Nov.‑18 vote; therefore, the exact roll‑call numbers are not available in current reporting supplied here ^{[2] [4]}. Available sources do not mention the final vote count.

6. Competing perspectives and potential agendas

Coverage shows two competing frames: proponents (including Khanna, Massie and survivors’ advocates) cast the move as transparency and accountability for victims, while opponents — and earlier statements from the White House — framed the push as politically motivated or a “Democrat hoax” until Trump reversed himself ^{[2] [9] [7]}. Outlets note that some Republicans supported the petition for political reasons (to counter allegations about Trump) and others opposed it to protect allies or the executive branch’s control of DOJ records ^{[5] [10]}.

7. Limitations and next steps for reporting

This briefing relies solely on the provided search results. Those sources document the procedural vehicle (discharge petition), the Nov. 12 completion of signatures, the principal sponsors, and President Trump’s U‑turn ^{[2] [1] [6]}. They do not, in the supplied material, report the final House floor vote tally or whether the bill ultimately became law; to answer the vote‑count question definitively, consult official House roll‑call records or follow‑up reporting beyond these items (available sources do not mention the final vote tally) ^{[2] [4]}.